1 Jun 2023
Applying Cap.192 s11(7) and the broad‑brush approach, the court accepted some increases in specific items (domestic helper, tutoring/extracurricular, childcare), corrected and reconciled Form E figures, fixed the child's reasonable monthly expenditure at HKD11,200 and ordered the husband to pay half (HKD5,600) per month from 1 July 2023; the variation was justified and affordable to the husband.
10 Jul 2020
Because the Husband's disclosure was deficient and he has high earning capacity, the court applied a broad-brush assessment of immediate needs, fixed the Wife's and child's immediate needs at HK$54,800 per month, deducted an allowance for the Wife's earning capacity of HK$15,000, found a net need of HK$39,800 and ordered the Husband to pay HK$39,800 per month from 15 July 2020; backdating was refused and no order as to costs was made.
9 Nov 2018
The court exercised its summary assessment power and, noting some items were excessive and no objections were filed, applied a broad‑brush reduction and awarded costs of HK$500,000 to the defendant to be paid forthwith.
14 Apr 2014
The Court dismissed the leave application: given the unsatisfactory and limited evidence the trial judge permissibly adopted a broad‑brush approach, was entitled to accept the husbands evidence that no bonus was received for 2012 and to treat the housing allowance as disbursed for rent and not part of disposable income, and the exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong.
24 Jun 2013
Applying the broad‑brush approach, the registrar assessed the appropriate costs for the application, including reserved costs and counsel's fees, at $140,000 and ordered the plaintiff to pay that sum to the defendants within 14 days.
27 Dec 2012
Applying the broad-brush approach and bearing in mind the plaintiff's specific objections, the Registrar reduced the defendant's solicitors' profit costs to $70,000, accepted disbursements of $38,100, assessed total costs at $108,100 and ordered the plaintiff to pay 60% of that sum, namely $64,860, within 14 days.
16 Jul 2009
Applying the broad‑brush approach the court found some items in the plaintiffs' costs excessive and assessed the proper sum at $47,000 to be paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiffs.